I have little desire to rehash the politics, but the facts are plain: by the time I arrived in college as an undergraduate English major in the mid-90s, the idea of the “Western Canon” as a container of—in the words of a famous hymn—“all that’s good, and great, and true” was seriously on the wane, to put it mildly. And in many quarters of academia, mention of the name of Yale literary critic Harold Bloom provoked, at the very least, a raised eyebrow and pointed silence. Bloom’s reputation perhaps unfairly fell victim to the so-called “Canon Wars,” likely at times because of a misidentification with political philosopher Allan Bloom. That Bloom was himself no ideologue, writes Jim Sleeper; he was a close friend of Saul Bellow and “an eccentric interpreter of Enlightenment thought who led an Epicurean, quietly gay life.” Nonetheless, his fiery attack on changing academic values, The Closing of the American Mind, became a textbook of the neoconservative right.

The Western Canon is tightly focused on only 26 authors, but in a series of four appendices, Bloom lists the hundreds of other names he considers canonical. For all of Bloom’s ornery defensiveness, his list is surprisingly inclusive, as well as—for Fruman—surprisingly idiosyncratic. (Bloom later disavowed the list, claiming that his editor insisted on it.) Like a classical philologist, Bloom divides his Canon into four “ages” or periods: The Theocratic Age (2000 BCE-1321 CE); The Aristocratic Age (1321-1832); The Democratic Age: 1832-1900); and The Chaotic Age (20th Century). You can view the complete list here. Below, we’ve compiled a very partial, but still sizable, excerpt of texts from Bloom’s list that are available online through the University of Adelaide’s ebook library. For all of the unpopular positions he has taken over the past few decades, Bloom’s immense erudition, expansive intellect, and sincere commitment to the humanities have never been in question. As a distinguished exemplar of a fading tradition, he is an invaluable resource for students and lovers of literature.

Of this last Appendix–which ends with Tony Kushner’s Angels in America and includes a great degree of diversity–Bloom writes: “I am not as confident about this list as the first three. Cultural prophecy is always a mug’s game. Not all of the works here can prove to be canonical . . . literary overpopulation is a hazard to many among them. But I have neither excluded nor included on the basis of cultural politics of any kind.” Again, the selections above are very limited. Before you ask, “what about x, y, or z!” see Bloom’s full list here. And if you still do not find authors you believe deserve inclusion in any version of the Western Canon, pick up a copy of Bloom’s book to learn more about his critical criteria.

It is profoundly disappointing that an institution that purports to foster rigorous thought and open-minded discourse has devolved to the point where “mention of the name” of a serious scholar who fails to conform to prevailing “correct thought” provokes “raised eyebrow[s] and pointed silence.” The modern University — at least in the humanities departments — has lost its mission.

You come close to saying that history – the oppression of women – is Bloom’s fault. If women had been treated as equals throughout history, there would be a great many more on this list. Apart from Behn (whom Bloom believes is fourth rate), other surprising omissions include Mary Wollstonecroft and Anne Carson (her best work was yet to come, though). Of course, there are plenty of surprising omissions of male writers – Sigmund Freud, Hans Christian Andersen, P. G. Wodehouse, etc.

The real problem with Bloom’s list isn’t a lack of women, it’s how embarrassingly anglo-centric it is. It’s clear from this list that Bloom reads no language besides English – a major red flag for someone claiming to be an expert on “Western” literature. Frankly this is for me a red flag even for a humble professor of English literature and culture. He does not include Céline, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Samuel Beckett, Leopardi, Eugenio Montale, Thomas Mann, Rilke, Paul Valéry, Novalis, Hölderlin… I could go on for quite some time. These are not minor figures.

Sarah, all of the writers you mention are included in the full list, but not on this edited version. (“Below, we’ve compiled a very partial, but still sizable, excerpt of texts from Bloom’s list that are available online through the University of Adelaide’s ebook library.”)

“It’s clear from this list that Bloom reads no language besides English.”

Bloom’s first language is Yiddish. He learned to read both Yiddish and Hebrew before English.

From the NY Times article “Bloom at Thermopylae”:
“His prodigious reading and uncannily retentive memory have long been legendary. Only a library cormorant could have undertaken so immensely ambitious a task as to survey all of Western literature, from Dante to Borges, in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish and Russian.”

Kafka is included under ‘German’ because he wrote in the German language, not because Bloom thinks he was a German. I doubt you’ll ever see this since you posted over a year ago but I just couldn’t say nothing.

What do you mean? One doesn’t simply bumble along and somehow become a professor in English literature and culture, let alone one of the most important academics at Yale. Those who have no respect for English professors don’t really understand the discipline or academia in general.

Bloom’s list is not perfect, but then no list is. It is a good place to start, if you want to catch up on the classics. He is not reliable after 1900, though. I would ignore his choices for the ‘Chaotic Age’, as I really think that era is not his area of expertise. For the 20th Century, if you like Bloom’s List, you’ll like the Modern Library’s list of the top 100 novels. If you don’t like Bloom, you’ll hate the Modern Library List for much the same reasons. It is even more Anglo-or American- centric, with only a few female authors.

Good call on Livy and Tacitus! Bloom, in his introduction to the first list, acknowledges the fact that many Greek and Latin works of great merit have been excluded. The reason for this, he says, is that the common reader won’t have time to read anything but the very best works (in terms of literary-aesthetic value) from the older canon.

Das Nibelungenlied does in fact feature in the full list – and quite right too!

Have you read the book? In “The Western Canon”, as the title of the book suggests, he wrote that he focused on the texts from the western world and that he did not include texts from regions outside it partly because he couldn’t read in their original language and that he felt he’s not versed enough to comment upon them. Though he does say that he reads books from everywhere, east or west.

Have you read the book, Sarah? In “The Western Canon”, as the title of the book suggests, he wrote that he focused on the texts from the western world and that he did not include texts from regions outside it partly because he couldn’t read in their original language and that he felt he’s not versed enough to comment upon them. Though he does say that he reads books from everywhere, east or west.

Replying to this two years later (haha), but I feel like noting that Bloom is a huge Anne Carson fan and refers to her as one of the living literary geniuses that he neglected to include in his 2003 book ‘Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds’. I assume he either forgot her or didn’t include her because her best work was to come, as you say (I know he has praised Autobiography of Red, which came out a few years later).

I’m firmly on the left politically, but agree with Bloom basically stopping with Robert Frost. When art is consciously forced through an ideology, it dies immediately. (We all act out our ideologies subconsciously.) What you have left is propaganda in its many-hyphenated forms. Lit for LGBTQetc.-studies. Or whatever the current group identity is currently being promoted.

If you don’t want to study Western Civ, you don’t have to. If you do, you will read some of these books written by dead white males. Not because I think their viewpoint is correct or laudable, but because in the past, unfortunately, only white men had access to education and leisure time necessary to create art. Therefore, their contribution to Western Civ (which is currently passing away) is the most important.

Of course women and minorities should be represented when the quality of their work is high. And no, I don’t mean quality as compared to men’s work. I mean compared to historical standards, whatever you might define those to be.

What we have now, though, are whole areas of traditional literature being labeled and shunted aside without being read. This also goes to the appalling ignorance of history, misunderstanding of myth, and obsession with the literal so common in youth today. I pity anyone working in academia today; it’s seeming to try to justify the right’s mocking of it.

Allan Bloom may be a conservative icon, but there is no doubt much of what he says is pretty much on the mark. All one needs to do is teach at a college for a year and find that his view of students is often on target. Also, read Chris Hedges and Dwight McDonald and you’ll find these “liberal” voices echoing Bloom. As far as “canon” goes, I resent them. The’re childish and biased. Reminds me of when I was a kid and someone asked “What’s your favorite movie?” As if out of hundreds of different genres and styles films I could name one that was my favorite. The “canon” is a guide, nothing more, nothing less.

Subscribe

Get updates as soon as they go live, via RSS feed, email and now Twitter!

Follow on Twitter

Get the latest from our Twitter Stream.

Facebook

Why can't we be friends?

Suggest a Link

Got a link we should post? Send it our way!

About Us

Open Culture editor Dan Colman scours the web for the best educational media. He finds the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & movies you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.